The “Against Divisiveness” letter from respected homeopaths
was on a website that now seems to be disabled. These are some of the texts that
were on that site. Perhaps they will be available again but in case not this is
the record of their attempt to avoid monolithic control of homeopathy by a
narrow-minded set of individuals.

…Just for
the record, we do not consider this documentation as the end but rather as the
starting point of a broad
debate relating to the methodology and scientific character of
homoeopathy as well as to ways of establishing the validity of homoeopathy. We
do not advocate dogmatic thinking. Statements which contradict the Organon are
not necessarily false. We greatly regret that time and time again every school
attempts to base their founding elements on choice quotes from the Organon. It
would be more scientific to ascertain the differences and to found them
methodically in each case. What also should be included in this debate are
developments of the last 200 years with regard to scientific theory,
epistemology and criticism of methodology. The question regarding the
objectivity of observation is generally accepted and legitimate and it should
give us the incentive to look for means of establishing the validity of
homoeopathy. It should not instigate us to take up the cudgels en route to
arbitrariness.

In recent
decades we have seen homoeopathy spread on a wide scale - however, at the same
time there has also been a considerable increase in "schools", in teachers and
in attempts to develop homoeopathy. What is taught and practiced at different
schools using the name of "homoeopathy" often does vary greatly with regard to
content. Various trends have distanced themselves in different ways from
Hahnemann's definitions and standards as they were explained in the Organon. The
only thing they seem to have in common is that they all prescribe drugs which
they refer to as being "homoeopathic".

There is
a lack of orientation amongst many colleagues, if not confusion, when it comes
to the right approach to homoeopathy.

One of
the main questions is how certainty can be achieved in homoeopathic
prescription. That is to say, which methods of attaining knowledge are
scientific in homoeopathy and are able to stand the test of critical
examination.

Hahnemann's starting point was prompted by his disappointment about the
speculative methods of medicine in his time on which he turned his back. How to
go about achieving certainty in the treatment of illness was what was at
stake to him. In his day and age Hahnemann found a way to attain this
certainty of cure by applying the method of pure observation, also
referred to as pure empiricism. Of course, here it was a matter of
certainty in the epistemological sense and not of certainty in the factual
sense. In practice this meant that there was a good chance of setting a healing
process in motion.

Achieving
certainty in the treatment of disease was Hahnemann's lifelong first and
foremost priority and yet, at the same time he had irreconcilable differences
about going beyond the obvious, beyond that which was perceivable through our
senses.

Disease
consists only of perceptible signs and symptoms, known as phenomena and it is
not the doctor's task to make statements about anything that lies "deeper" or
"behind" the obvious phenomena. This is one of the key statements of the Organon
and it goes through Hahnemann's entire works like a red line.

In
"Spirit of the Homoeopathic Doctrine of Medicine" he demands: "Appreciable,
distinctly appreciable to our senses must that be, which is to be removed in
each disease in order to transform it into health, and right clearly must each
remedy express what it can positively cure, if medical art shall cease to be a
wanton game of hazard with human life, and shall commence to be the sure
deliverer from diseases."

Pure
observation, i.e. pure empiricism
is the prerequisite so that we may set real against real when comparing the
patient's symptoms with the drug symptoms, and not end up comparing constructs
of the mind. It is only when we are comparing what is real with that which is
real that we are standing on firm ground. Then and only then is there a high
probability of achieving certainty of cure. It is only then that we may really
have confidence in homoeopathy. Observation in its pure sense is a main issue in
homoeopathy; it either makes or breaks the whole procedure. As soon as we go and
abandon pure observation and start comparing constructs with each other,
everything gets fuzzy because then we just do not know whether or not these
constructs can be taken for real.

The
background of this documentation

Is
homoeopathy a defined field of medicine or can anyone teach and practice methods
under the name of "homoeopathy" that are quite different from one another?

In
December 2000 JulianWinston, editor of
the North American journal "Homeopathy
Today", published critical comments on modern developments in homoeopathy.
Points of discussion were Rajan Sankaran's concept of central delusion, Jan
Scholten's theories and/or hypotheses on groups of chemical elements in the
periodic table and some new provings of drugs by means of which one sought to
discover the "central theme" of a drug using the doctrine of signatures, dream
provings and other meditation provings. The doctrine of signatures was
criticized as an instrument being used to acquire reliable knowledge about a
drug.

In
particular empathic thinking and anthropomorphic speculation were criticized,
i.e. means as they are applied in the doctrine of signatures. Also exposed to
criticism was the attempt to assign human qualities to animals based on the
empathic observation of these and to subsequently draw conclusions about the
"central themes" of drugs.

As a
direct result, 21 internationally well-known colleagues (amongst others Roger
Morrison, Rajan Sankaran, Jonathan Shore, Nancy Herrick, Harry van der Zee and
Deborah Collins) wrote a letter to the editor entitled "Against Divisiveness",
in which they urged JulianWinston to resign
from his job as editor ("Perhaps Mr. Winston no longer
feels able to represent the homeopathic community?")

André
Saine reacted to this with an article entitled "Homeopathy
versus Speculative Medicine", which was followed by a lively debate on the
principles of homoeopathy in North American homoeopathic journals.

It was
then that we heard about this debate from André
Saine and felt that the tone and style of the criticism towards JulianWinston was
unwarranted.

These
important questions should be and need to be addressed by as many participating
homoeopaths as possible on an international level.

This gave
rise to a "declaration" drawn up on our part which served the purpose of calling
the fundamental principles of homoeopathy back to mind.

From
April 2002 on into the year 2003 we collected comments and statements from
renowned homoeopaths worldwide, we addressed approx. 150 to 200 colleagues from
different countries, including the managing committeees of the German
Association of Homoeopathic Physicians, the German Hahnemann Association, the
editors of the German journals "Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie" and the
"Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung", the members of the board and each
individual president of the LIGA MEDICORUM HOMOEOPATHICA INTERNATIONALIS. We
sent all of them documents of the discussion and made a request for comments or
asked them alternatively to sign the "declaration". Our objective was to inform
colleagues and to provide for the broadest international debate possible. This
bilingual debate
was published on the web site of "Grundlagen und Praxis" publishers (www.grundlagen-praxis.de).
In total we have documented more than 100 statements, comments and articles from
the past and present which are now available to you here.

Just for
the record, we do not consider this documentation as the end but rather as the
starting point of a broad
debate relating to the methodology and scientific character of
homoeopathy as well as to ways of establishing the validity of homoeopathy. We
do not advocate dogmatic thinking. Statements which contradict the Organon are
not necessarily false. We greatly regret that time and time again every school
attempts to base their founding elements on choice quotes from the Organon. It
would be more scientific to ascertain the differences and to found them
methodically in each case. What also should be included in this debate are
developments of the last 200 years with regard to scientific theory,
epistemology and criticism of methodology. The question regarding the
objectivity of observation is generally accepted and legitimate and it should
give us the incentive to look for means of establishing the validity of
homoeopathy. It should not instigate us to take up the cudgels en route to
arbitrariness.

The
articles read reveal a lot of very rational lines of thoughts and we learned a
great deal from them. However, the naiveté of some articles and comments was
frightful. Regrettably, we also had to take note of the passive attitude of some
staff members of organizations we approached as well as that of the editorial
staff of some journals. We hope this publication will set colleagues everywhere
thinking independently about the fundamentals of homoeopathy. We are hopeful
that our colleagues will be more critical when dealing with new ideas and
speculations which often appear promising at the start, but unfortunately often
do not lead to anymore certainty of cure in practice, simply because, from an
epistemological point of view, they do not suit this purpose.

Acknowledgements

We would
like to express our sincere thanks to everyone who has participated in compiling
this extensive documentation and has contributed to its circulation with active
help, donations, translations, the granting of unburocratic permission for
publications or with their advice - first and foremost we would like to thank
the publishing house "Grundlagen und Praxis" for their ever pleasant
cooperation, their patience and great amount of technical support, as well as
Dr. Shiela Mukerjee-Guzik for her unflagging effort in doing translations free
of charge.

"We hope we are wrong in
supposing that all of these articles indicate a strong editorial

conviction against and
intolerance to hearing new concepts."

I have no problem with
hearing new concepts. The history of homeopathy is FILLED with

new concepts. And, if you
take a look at the pages of Homeopathy Today, you'll find plenty

of articles and seminar
reviews that focus on or refer to such new concepts. It is only when

esoterica is elevated to
the level of "ultimate truth" that I begin to have questions.

"It would be a shame to
allow this newsletter to devolve into partisanship and divisiveness

which will only wound the
community it exists to serve."

It will move in that
direction only if people do not take part in the process.

I am always accessible. My
e-mail is listed in each issue. That people who know me

(including many of those
who signed the letter) cannot take "pen in hand" (as it were) and

communicate directly to me
or write, as individuals, to Homeopathy Today disturbs me.

I was deeply dismayed by
this letter-- both by the tone and by the fact that a number of those

who signed it live
overseas, do not subscribe to Homeopathy Today, have no idea of the

Page 3

Julian Winston

The editor replies - May
2001

3

general content of the
magazine, and apparently signed it based only upon seeing a copy of

the editorial in question.

I believe if something is
to be called "homeopathy" then the process should be anchored

firmly in the homeopathic
principles. It is as simple as that.

JW

---------------------

A contributor makes this observation:

There was a link to the full text but it has been rendered
inoperative.

Moskowitz, Richard

The Fundamentalist Backlash

HANP-website; AJHM (2002, Summer)

By means of this article Dr. Moskowitz reacts as one of the
signers of the letter “Against Divisiveness” to the
answer of André Saine titled “Homeopathy versus Speculative Medicine”. He
explains which parts of the teachings of Sankaran, Scholten and Mangialavori he
values as useful, and that similar developments can be found already since the
time of Farrington. He discusses, to which extent these approaches are
speculative and how far they correspond to the principles of homeopathy
according to Hahnemann. The fact is explained, that these disputes concerning
the purity of the doctrine represent a recurring theme in the history of
homeopathy since Hahnemann.

A Reply to Julian Winston’s essay:

Brent Mathieu / Peter
Wright

Letters – Winter 2001

1

The following two letters
appeared in 'Simillimum' (Winter 2001, Vol.XIV, No.4, 6-

14)), the Journal of the
Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians

offers many options for
ways to practice, many areas for creative innovation, many

opportunities to market
products, services, and ideas. But let those who part ways with

Hahnemann be honest enough
to call their work something else—naturopathy, energy

healing, archetype
therapy—any term that doesn’t already have a distinct meaning assigned

to it. I believe that it’s
entirely fair to reserve the term Homeopathy for the methods of

Hahnemann and his direct
successors, and to maintain the original vision of the HANP as an

organization for NDs
practicing Hahnemann’s art.

---------------

Further evidence of the divisiveness and fear or reprisals:

Morrison, Roger.

Homeopathy Today (2002, Apr)

Reach for the olive branch

In his short answer to A.Saine’s
article „Drawing a Line in the Sand“ R.Morrison rejects especially A.Saine’s
critic of Sankaran’s concepts and explains his wish to finalize this debate and
coming back to a peaceful community. A republication of this article on this website was forbidden by Dr.
Morrison, with the statement: I do not wish to be included in this devisive
debate ". We regret this, because we think that his writings are an important
part of this debate, which we find more clearing than divisive. It might have
been better, to think about the sense and character of this debate before
publishing "Against divisiveness", which is a quite sharp answer to some
critical remarks of Julian
Winston and the main starting point of this discussion. A copy of
this article you can order from any homeopathic library e.g. the
Homöopathische Bibliothek Hamburg - Von Melle Park 3 – D-20146 Hamburg"

-------------------

Jan Scholten

Dogmatism in homeopathy
- Spring 2002

1

This article first appeared
in 'Homoeopathic Links' (Spring 2002, Vol.15, p.1), edited

by Corrie Hiwat and Harry
van der Zee (www.antenna.nl/homeolinks).

It is presented here with
kind permission.

In this article Jan
Scholten argues against dogmatism and sticking to authorities

(“Hahnemann said…”) in
Homoeopathy. Clinical symptoms were as important